Things Smackie Thinks You Need to Know...

[Venerable Bede]

Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
  and roads as well?

i think that answer would depend on how strict a libertarian that person is.  for me, i see roads as a public good- just about everyone uses them and everyone pays for them (unlike amtrak, which survives on federal subsidies to make up for what their fares don't cover).  plus one of the original purposes of the interstate highway system was for national defense, and national defense is a duty given to the federal government by the constitution.
 
 that being said. . .if federal roads and highways were to become privatized, i would fully expect federal gas taxes to go down as well, since those taxes are one of the main sources of funding for highway maintenance and construction.

[sweetcell]

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
 plus one of the original purposes of the interstate highway system was for national defense, and national defense is a duty given to the federal government by the constitution.

same for the train system... in time of war, trains are commandeered for troop and equipment transport.  
 
 if amtrak received as many subsidies are the highway system, it would be faster and cheaper = more people would use it, making it easier to defend as a public good.  catch-22.  
 
 the american value of individualism will ensure that roads > trains... driving a car is a god-given right.  will be interesting to see how this "right" evolves with higher gas prices.

[SPARX]

Originally posted by econo:
  I'm betting that Vansmack saw Candlebox open for Rush some time in the mid 90's?  Maybe that's how he got into them?

I saw Candlebox headline over the Flaming Lips @ The Patriot Centre. Talk about a travesty. I'd go with Far Behind, if I had to pick one. I did not see Candlebox finish their set that night, we ducked out early and I have no regrets with that.
 They're just one more reason I wish Pearl Jam had never existed(ducks for cover)
 
 Rush should have called it quits after 2112 IMHO. Gotta give props to Rutsey and the 1st release. The 2nd, Fly by Night was their highlight as far as I'm concerned though. Peart,what an addition!
 They sure caught a break there.

[Venerable Bede]

Originally posted by sweetcell:
   

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
 plus one of the original purposes of the interstate highway system was for national defense, and national defense is a duty given to the federal government by the constitution.

same for the train system... in time of war, trains are commandeered for troop and equipment transport.  
 
 if amtrak received as many subsidies are the highway system, it would be faster and cheaper = more people would use it, making it easier to defend as a public good.  catch-22.  
 
 the american value of individualism will ensure that roads > trains... driving a car is a god-given right.  will be interesting to see how this "right" evolves with higher gas prices. [/b]

i don't think that the government (either federal or state) built the railroad infrastructure, or at least controls it anymore.  the government has built interstates, highways and other roads.  just today union pacific railroad told supporters of the bullet train out here in california that they will not let new tracks for the bullet train cross onto their right-of-way....anyway, in a time of war, the military can do lots of things.
 
 there is a significant difference between railroad infrastructure and highway infrastructure.  i also think there is a difference in how highways are maintained and how amtrak is funded- taxes on gasoline help fund construction and maintenance of highways. . .amtrak is supposed to be a self-financed entity, but is unable to meet that goal, so it relies on federal subsidies to make it whole.
 
 as for gas, well, if the cost of gasoline keeps rising, then people will logically seek out lower cost alternatives. . .of which trains may be one of them.  that's the way the market works.  amtrak simply cannot compete against the price of gasoline, unless gas keeps increasing, for both cars and airplanes.

[ratioci nation]

http://dcist.com/2008/06/05/transit_on_thur_34.php
 
   

Let's start with Barack Obama. Sen. Obama has been quietly hailed as the candidate with the most forward positions on mass transportation. Of course, this really shouldn't come as any surprise, as the Illinois lawmaker has been interested in the topic for years - he petitioned for more efficient transit through low-income areas of Chicago in 2003, and mentioned in May of this year that he's had interest in copying the efficiency of the Northeast Corridor system in the Midwest: "One of the things I have been talking bout for awhile is high speed rail connecting all of these Midwest cities -- Indianapolis, Chicago, Milwaukee, Detroit, St. Louis." Speaking of Amtrak, Obama is a big supporter. He was a backer of the Lautenberg-Lott Amtrak bill in 2007, which would provide about $11.6 billion to Amtrak over the next six years. Obama's energy and climate stance includes promises to "reform the tax code to make benefits for driving and public transit or ridesharing equal," and to change the "transportation funding process to ensure that smart growth considerations are taken into account." Obama also opposes a federal gas tax holiday - instead, he believes that high prices of gasoline should "give individuals much more of an incentive to look at trains and mass transit as an alternative."
 
 Of course, most of the recent Obama love from transit-types has come from his remarks in Portland, Oregon:
 
 "It�??s time that the entire country learn from what�??s happening right here in Portland with mass transit and bicycle lanes and funding alternative means of transportation. That�??s the kind of solution that we need for America. That�??s the kind of truth telling that we are going to do in this campaign and when I am President of the United States of America. We don�??t need gimmicks.�?�

[godsshoeshine]

lies, i see nothing about hopechange

[sweetcell]

RE: the planes vs. trains article
 
 just for the fun of it, i took a position equally ridiculous as the one of the above author: i hunted down routes that are stacked in favor of trains.  some findings:
 
 Savannah to Jacksonville:
 Plane: $475, 4h 15m
 Train: $45, 2h 21m
 
 Savannah to Orlando:
 Plane: $374, 4h 01m
 Train: $54, 5h 43m
 
 Raleigh to Charlotte:
 Plane, cheapest: $451, 4h 47m
 Plane, fastest: $604, 2h 1m
 Train: $25, 3h 9m
 
 Greensboro, NC to Washington, DC
 Plane, cheapest: $533, 5h 1m
 Plane, fastest: $631, 2h 12m
 Train: $109, 6h 12m (or $56, 7h 47m)
 
 and with rising fuel costs, trains' price advantage will only improve.
 
 i used the author's "plane time = actual flight time + 1 hour" formula, although i think it's wrong - i would add 2 hours (hello, dulles or BWI).  so plane times look better than they should, IMO.
 
 so saying...
   

(1) The price of trains would have to be equal or less than airfare, or
 
 (2) The travel times of trains must improve greatly to rival planes, or
 
 (3) Both.

... doesn't make a lot of sense to me, since the vast majority of the time #1 is already the case, and #2 cannot happen - and certainly not for the routes chosen in the original article.  
 
 a respectable speed for a high-speed train is 150 mph (NYC-DC in 1.5 hours!).  airplanes clock in at around 600 mph.  so even if trains (1) didn't stop more often,  (2) didn't have their max allowable speeds limited by local regulations, and (3) traveled in lines as straight as planes, it would take four times as long to cover the same distance.  but with those factors, having a trip take 5 or 6 times still wouldn't be bad (not that we're near that currently).  
 
 trains are under-subsidized, our rail network sucks and it is cargo-centric.  but trains will never be as fast as planes, except for regional travel.  i feel that the original article was being disingenuous.  the improvement of the train system is a valid debate to have, but the article that started this debate has the question framed wrong.

[Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer]

Did you do this on your own time (GEEK alert!) or on your employers time? And if the latter, do you work for the Department of Transportation?
 
 
 

Originally posted by sweetcell:
  RE: the planes vs. trains article
 
 just for the fun of it, i took a position equally ridiculous as the one of the above author: i hunted down routes that are stacked in favor of trains.  some findings:
 
 Savannah to Jacksonville:
 Plane: $475, 4h 15m
 Train: $45, 2h 21m
 
 Savannah to Orlando:
 Plane: $374, 4h 01m
 Train: $54, 5h 43m
 
 Raleigh to Charlotte:
 Plane, cheapest: $451, 4h 47m
 Plane, fastest: $604, 2h 1m
 Train: $25, 3h 9m
 
 Greensboro, NC to Washington, DC
 Plane, cheapest: $533, 5h 1m
 Plane, fastest: $631, 2h 12m
 Train: $109, 6h 12m (or $56, 7h 47m)
 
 and with rising fuel costs, trains' price advantage will only improve.
 
 i used the author's "plane time = actual flight time + 1 hour" formula, although i think it's wrong - i would add 2 hours (hello, dulles or BWI).  so plane times look better than they should, IMO.
 
 so saying...
   

(1) The price of trains would have to be equal or less than airfare, or
 
 (2) The travel times of trains must improve greatly to rival planes, or
 
 (3) Both.

... doesn't make a lot of sense to me, since the vast majority of the time #1 is already the case, and #2 cannot happen - and certainly not for the routes chosen in the original article.  
 
 a respectable speed for a high-speed train is 150 mph (NYC-DC in 1.5 hours!).  airplanes clock in at around 600 mph.  so even if trains (1) didn't stop more often,  (2) didn't have their max allowable speeds limited by local regulations, and (3) traveled in lines as straight as planes, it would take four times as long to cover the same distance.  but with those factors, having a trip take 5 or 6 times still wouldn't be bad (not that we're near that currently).  
 
 trains are under-subsidized, our rail network sucks and it is cargo-centric.  but trains will never be as fast as planes, except for regional travel.  i feel that the original article was being disingenuous.  the improvement of the train system is a valid debate to have, but the article that started this debate has the question framed wrong. [/b]

[Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer]

I have friends in Raleigh and in Charlotte, and none of them would take either the plane or train to see each other. That's a ridiculous example.

[godsshoeshine]

all of those are ridiculous. those flights are all connectors primarily. maybe dc to greensboro

[sweetcell]

Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
  Did you do this on your own time (GEEK alert!) or on your employers time? And if the latter, do you work for the Department of Transportation?

that's a geek alert you're hearing in the background.  couldn't find anything good on TV late last night.  took me about 15 minutes.  bonus feature: i used the
  ITA Software meta search engine to find airfares.  highly recommended when looking for cheap fares.  when browsing results, the "Choose flights (graphical)" feature is really useful.
 
       

Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
  I have friends in Raleigh and in Charlotte, and none of them would take either the plane or train to see each other. That's a ridiculous example.

absolutely agreed, but that was my point - to be as ridiculous as the original author.
 
     

Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
  all of those are ridiculous. those flights are all connectors primarily. maybe dc to greensboro

but that's exactly what the original author did - he chose only indirect train route that required connections, i.e. he stacked his choices in favor of planes (he wrote: For trains�??shown at a particular disadvantage in this study as the selected cities are not on direct routes�??the time includes waits between transfers).  i did the opposite: compared indirect flights to direct trains.  and yes, the greensboro-DC "fastest" route was direct, all others were connections.  i always chose the faster/shortest connection.

[Venerable Bede]

more on amtrak from  the atlantic
 
 Moreover, if oil prices stay high, the math changes substantially for passenger rail, making new routes more profitable. People will probably never take the train en masse from New York to Los Angeles, but a direct train from New York to Chicago could start looking good, particularly when you factor in the drive to out-of-the way airports, delays, and time spent removing your shoes in security lines.

[vansmack]

Originally posted by sweetcell:
 a respectable speed for a high-speed train is 150 mph (NYC-DC in 1.5 hours!).  airplanes clock in at around 600 mph.  so even if trains (1) didn't stop more often,  (2) didn't have their max allowable speeds limited by local regulations, and (3) traveled in lines as straight as planes, it would take four times as long to cover the same distance.  

CA is shooting for 220 MPH and is looking for SF to LA in under 3 hours.  Door to door would be about the same time as going to and from both airports for me to get from my apt to my folks house in Anaheim.

[vansmack]

Originally posted by vansmack:
  I'm working on a new online library idea and need to get/earn some capital before embarking on it (that's code for Smackette won't let me spend any more money on the project).  

So remember when I was talking about this?  
 
 My project this summer is to build this for myself (it's been a while since I built myself a machine and its much cheaper than the HP device I was looking at).
 
 But for those that have a Mac Mini lying around...I was going to do this myself, but it's a bit of a waste for the video components.

[vansmack]

AT&T's iPhone 3G subsidy will cost 'em
 
 So starting this summer, the new iPhone will cost $199 (8GB) or $299 (16GB) with a 2 year contract (at&t now subisdizes the total cost by taking a loss), but you'll pay at least $10 more a month for data (or $240 over the duration of the contract).  
 
 AT&Ts logic is that more people will buy them (total #) and either switch to at&t or existing customers will switch from voice only plans to  add a data plan, and thus they will make money.  Wow.  
 
 The only sure winner here is Apple, as usual.  And anyone who waited to buy the second generation iPhone that works on the 3G network.  That's not going to confuse anyone.